Statistics of Dicing with death

Scores on Dicing with death as of 28 January 2026

Contents type: Verbal, spatial.   Period: 2013-present

• n: 25
• Median: 22.0
• Quartile deviation: 8.0
• Maximum possible: 64
• Male median: 24.5 (n = 24)
• Proportion of males among candidates: 0.960
• Hardness: 0.66
• Resolution: 8.0

Correlation of Dicing with death with other mental ability tests

Weighted mean of correlations: 0.732 (N = 827)

Estimated g factor loading: 0.86

Ranking in above table is based on the unrounded correlations. All available data is present in this table, no tests are left out except for those with less than 4 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

Estimated loadings of Dicing with death on particular item types

These are estimated g factor loadings, but against homogeneous tests (containing only particular item types) as opposed to non-compound heterogeneous tests. Although tending to surprise the lay person, it is not uncommon for tests to have high loadings on item types they do not actually contain themselves. Such loadings reflect the empirical fact that most tests for mental abilities measure primarily g, regardless of their contents; that the major part of test score variance is caused by g, and only a minor part by factors germane to particular item types. It is of key importance to understand that this is a fact of nature, a natural phenomenon, and not something that was built into the tests by the test constructors.

N = 652

Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.

Balanced g loading = 0.82

National medians for Dicing with death

Total number of countries: 13

For reasons of privacy, only countries with 3 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the medians, and then alphabetic.

Correlation of Dicing with death with personal details

Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.

Estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges

The goal of estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges is to verify the hypothesis that g becomes less important, accounts for a smaller proportion of the variance, at higher I.Q. levels. The mere fact of restricting the range like this also depresses the g loading compared to computing it over the test's full range, so it would be normal for these values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.

Reliability analysis for Dicing with death

• Split-half (odd-even) = 0.94
• Split-half (1, 2… 5, 6… vs. 3, 4… 7, 8…) = 0.95
• Cronbach's alpha = 0.94

Error

• Standard error = 2.9 raw score points

Scores by age for Dicing with death

N = 25

Scores by year taken for Dicing with death

N = 25

Robustness and overall test quality for Dicing with death

• Robustness (score trend by time measured in months) = r_{raw scores × months} = 0.00 (n = 25, p value = 0.97)
• Quality (new method) = 69.1

Correlations between sections for Dicing with death (internal consistency versus profile information)

Ideal values for correlations between sections are around .5, thus being a compromise between the test's ability to yield a "profile" and its ability to provide an indication of general intelligence. With a too high correlation (like .8 or higher) the sections measure basically the same so there is almost no profile information in them, with a too low correlation (like .2 or lower) the sections are so different that there is little point in combining them into a measure of general intelligence.

Section frequency tables for Dicing with death

Prop. = proportion of candidates outscored in this section. In parentheses the proportion outscored for any possible scores higher than the present score but lower than the next-higher score in the table.

Verbal

Spatial

Item analysis

Item statistics are not published as that would help candidates. To detect bad items, answers and comments from candidates are studied, as well as, for each problem, the correlation with total score on the remaining problems (item-rest correlation) and the proportion of candidates getting it wrong (hardness of the item). Possible bad items are revised, replaced, or removed, possibly resulting in a revised version of the test.

[More statistical reports]